I have to laugh at the gall of cyberstalker genebbb. This cyberstalker/troll specializes in ad-hominem for those unfamiliar with this practice.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

I frequently cross paths with Gene and his methods rarely change and even more rarely does he even comment on the subject at hand. A google of Gene and smoking brings up numerous examples that don’t involve me. His attacks are always the same.

Google this harleyrider creep–he invades message boards nationwide with his boilerplate spam. He’s apparently from the tobacco-growing state of Kentucky–Mitch McConnell’s fiefdom, and the state with the highest smoking rate, the highest lung cancer rate, and–not coincidentally–the weakest smokefree policies. Thanks, Mitch!

And one of my favorites

Poor Yale Daily News is under attack from a tiny but active cabal of out-of-state pro-smoking activists. There are websites out there where fanatics alert each other to vulnerable message boards they can invade, or online polls they can warp. Google marbee. Google carol2000 and/or her links to the site of one carol as thomson. As others have noted, they are diehard conspiracy theorists, yes.

Then there’s this McFadden character, the online stalker who attacks message boards around the world. No site may dare to post anything about smoking and expect to be free from a visit from McF, descending from his search engine and hijacking the site so he can “brand” his book title on it, and post links to his and his pals’ websites. (This raises their google rankings, as it appropriates the good name and reputation of normal sites like the YDN.)

Why is it one of my favorites? Well Michael J McFadden happens to be an author who happened to write a book on the subject called “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” I will not deny the fact that I know who Mr McFadden is, our paths cross frequently including such sites as MoGASP and Dr Michael Siegel’s site “The Rest of the Story” The latter is of particular interest as Dr Siegel is a former tobacco control trainer and points to the fact that Gene’s ad hominem attacks are actually part of tobacco control training. He was expelled from the Smoke Free List Server because he disagreed with the dishonest attacks against Mr McFadden.

The true colors of the modern-day anti-smoking movement showed brightly last week, as a prominent smoke-free air advocate (me) was thrown off a smoke-free advocacy list-serve for daring to criticize an inflammatory and unfounded personal attack, bordering on defamation, of an individual (private citizen) who is a smoking ban opponent which was posted on the list-serve.

A fellow smoke-free advocate – Tim Filler, who is on the steering committee of Smoke Free Indy – posted on the list-serve a nasty personal attack against Michael McFadden. . . . Here is the rest of the story:

If you take part in secondhand smoke policy training in the tobacco control movement, chances are that you will be taught that all opposition to smoking bans is orchestrated by the tobacco industry, that anyone who challenges the science connecting secondhand smoke exposure and severe health effects is a paid lackey of Big Tobacco, and that any group which disseminates information challenging these health effects is a tobacco industry front group. Consequently, the a chief strategy of tobacco control is to smear the opposition by accusing them of being tobacco industry moles. And in no situation should one say anything positive about an opponent, even if true.

How do I know this?

Because for many years, I was one of the main trainers of tobacco control advocates in the United States. And this is what I taught, because this was what I was led to believe. I attended many conferences and trainings and this is precisely what I was taught. I accepted it for the truth, and passed it along to others.

However, in 1999, a sentinel event in my career occurred which woke me up to the fact that I had in fact been brainwashed to believe these errant ideas. I wrote an article summarizing some of these ideas. In the article, I suggested that if any group opposes a smoking ban, advocates should not discuss the substance of the opponents’ claims, but should instead try to discredit them by exposing their ties to Big Tobacco.

I woke up one morning to find that, without my permission, my article had been posted on the internet by Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights (ANR). Something about having my work published on the world wide web for everyone to see awoke me from my brainwashing and snapped me back to reality. . .

Now since I am a regular poster on both MoGasp’s site and Dr Michael Siegels, they both know exactly who both Michael McFadden and I are and at no time do either one of them engage in the vicious unfounded personal attacks engaged by Gene, I actually have spoken to Mr Pion (the president of MoGASP) and like the man, I disagree with him but I like him. But back to Cyberstalker Gene. In the lattest round he had the gall to accuse someone of libel.

gene 22 hours ago in reply to ichoosefreedom
Perhaps your name should be “ichooselibel” Because that’s what your post is, LIBEL.

I would suggest that by definition, every one of Genes posts is LIBEL.

Law .
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
the act or crime of publishing it.

a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

In any Libel case intent is everything and your intent is clear.

These fanatics have no mercy, they spam every site that lets them. They have these websites where they alert each other to innocent message boards they can dump their swill on. “Marbee” and “Marshall Keith” are 2 of maybe 10 people whose mission is to spam every site in the country that dares to mention smoking without their approval.

Ego-inflated, sanctimonious hypocrites like you would be hilarious if they weren’t so predictable–and sad. Just give ’em a little rope and let ’em dangle.

How many ways can you find to contradict yourself–and expose the true you?
1. You say advertising means nothing to you–then you proceed to tout yourself to all and sundry, complete with links(!) Mailer wrote “Advertisements for Myself,” but he was a piker next to you. It’s painfully clear that your spam campaign isn’t about issues–it’s about _you_, it’s about getting _your_ name all over the internet, spewing out _your_ self-touting links, which you’ve done in most of your messages. You have no real accomplishment, nothing that would distinguish you to anyone, so you spam innocent websites as the next best thing. “Notice me! Notice me! Please, someone, anyone, notice me!” Who do you think you’re fooling?

2. You claim I don’t address the issue, but I am addressing the issue– the issue of YOU. That’s the issue you yourself introduced when you came 2500 miles to inject yourself and your links onto this board–so that’s what I’m talking about. Isn’t that what you want, people talking about you? Well, that’s what I’m doing. Just not in the way your fragile ego so baldly craves.

3. You hold yourself up as some sort of White Knight, but your clarion call of honor and justice rings just a little hollow when you pointedly ignore the ballot-stuffing issue I raised–twice for you now(!) Your silence is a loud implied endorsement. What’s the matter? Don’t want to anger your pals? THIS is your level of ethics? And you expect anyone to listen to you?

Well, it’s a p-ing match now, isn’t it, so I’m out. At least now Texans can see where you really come from–and not just physically.

Silly, deluded child, the only thing left to say is, you fool no one; please, seek help.

You see my dillusinal fool, my ego is not so fragile that I won’t post your insults on my page and expose you for the fool that you actually are.

Added August 28,2011

Perhaps Gene it is you that should bone up on your libel law.  Your latest statement does not have even a grain of truth,

but, with Keith, to post their pals’ links–after all, posting your obscure, conspiracy-theory, donation-requesting website links on a reputable site like the Patch raises their google rankings.


But then I gave up on anything resembling integrity from your kind. Please show the conspiracy theories or the donation link!

Update 08-22-12 Dr Michael Siegel weighed in on the subject.

I believe that public health is just that: “public.” It involves regulating the behavior of the public and we should therefore be willing to listen to what the public has to say, even if we disagree. Censorship does not advance our interests, even if it silences the “opposition.”

The advocate would have a point if these individuals were actually tobacco industry representatives or if they were being paid by the tobacco industry to state these opinions. In that case, it would not be unreasonable to restrict the comments or to require that the authors disclose their tobacco industry affiliations. However, the advocate provides no evidence that these individuals are paid by the tobacco industry and the truth is that they are indeed private individuals and not industry representatives.

So there are actually two problems here. One is the promotion of censorship. The second is the making of false public accusations about individuals in an attempt to discredit them. Discredit all you want but do not base it on false and unsupported public accusations.